|← The Marriages|
Procreation is a choice and no one can stand ground and justify the illegality of gay marriages on its basis. If the couple, which cannot procreate survives and probably adopts children to compensate for their inability to procreate, gay couples can also do the same. Why is there a difference or special focus on gays as if they are weird or strange? Gay couples can also raise children; they can use sperm banks, surrogate mothers, close confidant donating sperm, or adoption meaning that they too, have an opportunity of experiencing the joy to raise children (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009). Generally, society comes to agreement that couples deserve an opportunity of raising children as well as watching them grow, so why then does the same society discriminate as to what couple is fit to raise the children by justifying the illegality of gay marriages?
Holy books also stand ground as controversial arguments, which surround gay marriages. The books argue that heterosexual marriages are the only acceptable marriages as per their belief (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009). They therefore have no other basis of disallowing gay marriages other than abstract belief (David, 2004; Mark, 2007; Time, 2003). To begin with, on this argument, it is good to appreciate religion because it has been there for long and shaped the societal morals. It also helps stabilize the society with the belief in the superior being. However, not everyone is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other religion. There are non-believers within us and they have a human right to practice freedom of religion. This is among the prominent things that have allowed the world to run smoothly otherwise, there could be religious wars all over with each clinging to its superiority (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009).
Having said this, there are people who do not believe in the holy books and they are gays. How can we justify that they are acting illegally. Religion and the government are two elements that always are at loggerheads. It would be divisive and not wise to give religion an upper hand over the constitution that allows the rights of human beings (David, 2004; Mark, 2007; Time, 2003). Therefore, no religious argument against gay marriage legalizations should stand ground. The constitution leads and governs many nations across the globe and if it were not for the same, there would be instability in every nation. Religion is okay for the society but the constitution dictates even on religion meaning that legalizing gay marriages should not come out as a debatable issue, it is already in the constitution that everyone has a right of choice, why waste time in negotiating something that is already in writing (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009).
The majority rule does not always apply in the modern era. Many people still believe that because many people are opposing gay marriages, there should not be a legalization of the practice. Nevertheless, who said that the majority are always right? On the same note, particular groups have particular stands. For instance, Christians have a belief in Jesus, Muslims believe in Allah and other cultural groups have their traditions (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009). What would be the case if the Muslims turn against the Christians and critic their beliefs? What would be the reaction of Christians? Literally, each group stands grounds and convinces its followers that they are on the right way and respect for religion has sustained the globe for long. Raising the gay marriages illegality issue is just a discriminating factor and only infringing the rights of a minority who do not have a strong voice like other groups (David, 2004; Mark, 2007; Time, 2003).
It is a behavior of human being to go against what the society terms as bad and naïve. This has been evident from the many social norms that people engage in (rape, crime among others) because of the negative approach that the society takes to handle the issue. Deviants emerge in the event of such situations bringing in an element of bad character among people (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009). From this, the issue of gay marriages might turn to be a concern with many people engaging in the act just because of deviant behaviors. Legalizing gay marriages means that there will be full information as to the pros and cons of the practice and this will be in the public limelight.
With this, it will be possible for the society to educate people on the marriages as well as what they expect from the same before they make a rational choice (David, 2004; Mark, 2007; Time, 2003). Criticizing the marriages would just make things worse because it will create an issue of concern that is not appropriate for the entire society (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009). It would be better that everyone knows what gay marriages are, how they work and the way they operate so that for those who choose to go the gay marriage way, they at least know how to handle the pressures and other issues of the practice.
This paper in an argument and a reflection of the thesis, Gay marriages should be legalized (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009). It is apparent that gay marriages as an issue is occasionally raising concerns in the modern world. The elements of religion, traditions and other personal statements have been on the limelight as opposition gay marriages. Each of them has grounds of reasoning and explaining gay marriages as immoral, illegal and a bad practice (David, 2004; Mark, 2007; Time, 2003). However, there is always the other side of the coin and without a doubt, basing on the universal rights declaration (ACLU, 1998; Darren, 2006; Jonathan, 2004; Scott, 2009), constitutions of respective countries and many other avenues, gay marriages stand as legal. We cannot dispute the selective arguments against gay marriages but if we seek a universal understanding, gay marriages should be legalized without further ado. The selective perceptions only apply to single entities in particular community for instance religious groups, organizations and other sub-groups. The arguments against have no universal claim that could justify illegality of gay marriages. Practically, legalizing gay marriages is the only option for practicing universal justice.